Comments

On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 15:04 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> Use the correct S3C2440_NFCONF_* macros for the mask for the 2412/2440> variants instead of the 2410 ones which use wrong bit positions.> > Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@sunsite.dk>
Your patch is already in the mtd-2.6.git tree.

>>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> writes:
Artem> On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 15:04 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>> Use the correct S3C2440_NFCONF_* macros for the mask for the 2412/2440 >> variants instead of the 2410 ones which use wrong bit positions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@sunsite.dk>
Artem> Your patch is already in the mtd-2.6.git tree.
Ahh, sorry - Missed that. I resent it as it is a prerequisite to the
s3c64xx support to the driver I sent yesterday.
That patch seems to have never made it to the list though, so I will
resend.

On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 07:38 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> >>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> writes:> > Artem> On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 15:04 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:> >> Use the correct S3C2440_NFCONF_* macros for the mask for the 2412/2440> >> variants instead of the 2410 ones which use wrong bit positions.> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@sunsite.dk>> > Artem> Your patch is already in the mtd-2.6.git tree.> > Ahh, sorry - Missed that. I resent it as it is a prerequisite to the> s3c64xx support to the driver I sent yesterday.> > That patch seems to have never made it to the list though, so I will> resend.
It was trapped, but now approved.

>>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> writes:
Hi,
>> That patch seems to have never made it to the list though, so I >> will resend.
Artem> It was trapped, but now approved.
Thanks. What did I do wrong to get it trapped?

On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 08:32 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> >>>>> "Artem" == Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> writes:> > Hi,> > >> That patch seems to have never made it to the list though, so I> >> will resend.> > Artem> It was trapped, but now approved.> > Thanks. What did I do wrong to get it trapped?
"Re in subject but no in-reply-to". dwmw2 was going to fix this
few years ago :-)

On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 23:41 -0700, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > "Re in subject but no in-reply-to". dwmw2 was going to fix this> few years ago :-)
Other way round, surely. It's the thread-hijack check, which checks for
messages with In-Reply-To: or References: headers indicating that
they're a reply to an existing thread, but without 'Re:' or 'Aw:' in the
Subject: header.
In the years since I implemented that basic netiquette check, it's
become acceptable to do exactly that for patch sequences. I thought I'd
fixed it to accept 'PATCH' as well as 'Re:' and 'Aw:', but on looking
closer I see I screwed it up -- it was trying to do a case-insensitive
compare by turning the subject header into lower case before the
comparison.... and then comparing against 'PATCH' in upper case... :)
Fixed now:
http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/eximconf.git?a=commitdiff;h=47505756

>>>>> "David" == David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> writes:
Hi,
David> In the years since I implemented that basic netiquette check,
David> it's become acceptable to do exactly that for patch
David> sequences. I thought I'd fixed it to accept 'PATCH' as well as
David> 'Re:' and 'Aw:', but on looking closer I see I screwed it up
David> -- it was trying to do a case-insensitive compare by turning
David> the subject header into lower case before the
David> comparison.... and then comparing against 'PATCH' in upper
David> case... :)
Thanks!